VANDANA CYLINDERS P LTD Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VANDANA CYLINDERS PVT.LTD.
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This revision is directed against the warrant of attachment before Judgment issued by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1820 of 1991. The said warrant of attachment before judgment can only be in pursuance of an order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1820 of 1991 but the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is not filed by the petitioner.
(2.)The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the affidavit filed by the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank does not disclose the source of his information for swearing to the facts mentioned in the affidavit and as such the learned Principal Subordinate Judge committed a grave error in relying upon the allegations in the said affidavit and granting relief to the respondent by way of attachment before judgment. In support of his contention, the teamed counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in M/s Sukhurinder Pal Bipan Kumar vs. State of Punjab wherein it is held that under Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is incumbent on the dependent to disclose the nature and source of his knowledge with sufficient particularity. Since the allegations in the petition are not supported by an affidavit as required by law the learned Judges have held that the allegations in the writ petition are not sufficient to constitute an averment of mala fides so as to vitiate the impugned orders of suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Har Krishan Khosla vs. M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., wherein it is held that where the plaintiff had filed an application for attachment before judgment and in support of that application an affidavit to the effect that the defendant was about to dispose of the property in order to delay or obstruct execution of a decree was sworn on the basis of information but the source of information was not disclosed in the affidavit the affidavit could not be read in evidence and the application could not be allowed on such an affidavit. The Division Bench held that the deponent had to state the name and address and sufficiently describe the identity of the person or persons from whom he received such an information.
(3.)With regard to the scope of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of our High Court in Y. Vijayalakshmamma vs. S.Lakshmaiah & Sons holding that before an order of attachment before judgment is made the court must satisfy itself that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove the whole or part of his property and that that satisfaction must be derived from some material on record either by way of affidavit or otherwise but cannot be whimsical nor can it be illusory.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.